[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 THE HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT (H.R. 1784):
                  EXAMINING A PLAN TO SECURE PAID SICK
                         LEAVE FOR U.S. WORKERS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS


                         COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                               AND LABOR
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

             HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 11, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-56

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    


    Available via the: https://edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
    
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
41-103 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
    
    
    
                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

             ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

Susan A. Davis, California           Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut            David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio                Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Tim Walberg, Michigan
  Northern Mariana Islands           Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon             Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California              Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina        Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Donald Norcross, New Jersey          Jim Banks, Indiana
Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
Joseph D. Morelle, New York          James Comer, Kentucky
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
Josh Harder, California              Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Steve Watkins, Kansas
Kim Schrier, Washington              Ron Wright, Texas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois           Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut            Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Donna E. Shalala, Florida            Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Andy Levin, Michigan*                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
David J. Trone, Maryland
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair
                                 ------                                

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

               ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman

Mark DeSaulnier, California          Bradley Byrne, Alabama,
Mark Takano, California                Ranking Member
Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Ron Wright, Texas
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on March 11, 2020...................................     1

Statement of Members:
    Adams, Hon. Alma S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce 
      Protections................................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
     Byrne, Hon. Bradley, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
      Workforce Protections......................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6

Statement of Witnesses:
    Glynn, Dr. Sarah Jane, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for 
      American Progress..........................................     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
    Goldman, Ms. Tanya, J.D., Senior Policy Analyst Center for 
      Law and Social Policy (CLASP)..............................    40
        Prepared statement of....................................    43
    Johnson, Ms. Renee J., Senior Government Affairs Manager, 
      Main Street Alliance.......................................    20
        Prepared statement of....................................    23
    Milito, Ms. Elizabeth, Esquire, Senior Executive Counsel, 
      NFIB Small Business Legal Center...........................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    31

Additional Submissions:
    Chairwoman Adams:
        Prepared statement from National Partnership for Women 
          and Families...........................................    82
        Remarks of Hon. Rosa DeLauro.............................    86
        Letter dated March 18, 2019..............................    91
        Letter from Ms. Laura Melton.............................    97
    McBath, Hon. Lucy, Congressman from the State of Georgia:
        Paid Family and Medical Leave Would Benefit 27.5 Million 
          Latino Workers.........................................    98
        Prepared statement from the YWCA.........................   100
    Scott, Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Congressman from the State of 
      Virginia:
        Prepared statement form Asian Pacific Labor Alliance AFL-
          CIO (APALA)............................................   105
        Prepared statement from The Leadership Conference on 
          Civil and Human Rights.................................   107
        Prepared statement from MomsRising.......................   111
        Prepared statement from UNITEHERE........................   115
        Prepared statement from Government Affairs...............   116
        Prepared statement from National Council of Jewish Women.   118
        Prepared statement from TIME'S UP Now....................   120
        Prepared statement from National Women's Law Center......   122

 
                 THE HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT (H.R. 1784):
                  EXAMINING A PLAN TO SECURE PAID SICK
                         LEAVE FOR U.S. WORKERS

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, March 11, 2020

                       House of Representatives,

                 Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,

                    Committee on Education and Labor

                            Washington, D.C.

                              ----------                              

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Alma S. Adams 
(Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Adams, DeSaulnier, Takano, Wild, 
McBath, Omar, Stevens, Byrne, Cline, and Wright.
    Also Present: Representatives Scott, Foxx, Davis, Bonamici, 
and Schrier.
    Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Ilana Brunner, 
General Counsel; David Dailey, Senior Counsel; Carrie Hughes, 
Director of Health and Human Services; Eli Hovland, Staff 
Assistant; Eunice Ikene, Labor Policy Advisor; Jaria Martin, 
Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff Director; Max Moore, Staff 
Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Banyon Vassar, 
Deputy Director of Information Technology; Joshua Weisz, 
Communications Director; Rachel West, Senior Economic Policy 
Advisor; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director; Gabriel Bisson, 
Minority Staff Assistant; Courtney Butcher, Minority Director 
of Member Services and Coalitions; Akash Chougule, Minority 
Professional Staff Member; Rob Green, Minority Director of 
Workforce Policy; Jeanne Kuehl, Minority Legislative Assistant; 
Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Operations; Carlton 
Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; and Ben Ridder, Minority 
Professional Staff Member.
    Chairwoman Adams. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protections will come to order. Welcome, everyone. I 
note that a quorum is present. I note for the subcommittee that 
Ms. Susan Davis of California, Ms. Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, 
and Dr. Kim Schrier of Washington are permitted to participate 
in today's hearing with the understanding that their questions 
will come only after all Members of the Workforce Protections 
Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who are present have 
had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
    The subcommittee is meeting today in a legislative hearing 
to hear testimony on the Healthy Families Act, H.R. 1784, 
examining a plan to provide paid sick leave to U.S. workers. 
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c) opening statements are limited 
to the Chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to hear 
from our witnesses sooner, provides all members with adequate 
time to ask questions.
    I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Today we will discuss H.R. 1784, the Healthy Families Act, 
a proposal to establish paid sick leave as an essential 
workplace protection for our Nation's workers. This hearing 
could not come at a more appropriate time. As we speak, the 
rapid spread of the coronavirus is highlighting the severe 
consequences of our failure to secure paid sick leave for 
millions of workers and their families.
    Across the county, public health officials are rightfully 
asking or requiring potentially infected Americans to stay home 
from work and avoid travel. But for many workers, particularly 
low-wage workers, taking time off when they are sick means 
losing the wages they need to cover basic expenses, including 
food and housing. Many have no choice but to work even though 
they are ill.
    We are deeply concerned about the potential impact of the 
coronavirus epidemic, and we are continuing to explore 
different options for providing workers access to paid sick 
leave on an emergency basis. Our Nation's workers are 
particularly vulnerable to this emerging public health crisis 
because the United States is the only industrialized nation 
that does not require access to paid sick leave.
    For the more than 32 million American workers who cannot 
earn paid sick days, getting sick, whether it is a rare 
infectious disease or the common cold, often means having to 
choose between prioritizing their health and sacrificing their 
paycheck. Unfortunately, access to paid sick days is 
particularly limited for the low-income workers who need it 
most.
    Of the bottom 10 percent of private sector wage earners, 
just 3 in 10 have access to paid sick days. Making matters 
worse, inadequate access to paid sick leave is particularly 
concentrated in service industry occupations that have frequent 
contact with the public. A 2016 survey found that 86 percent of 
women in the fast food industry lacked access to paid sick 
days.
    For many workers, taking even a couple of unpaid days from 
work to recover from an illness could cost them a month's worth 
of utilities. As a result, workers often report to work even 
when they are ill, risking their health and the health of their 
coworkers. In 2009, researchers estimated the 20 million 
workers went to work sick.
    When so many people are unable to forgo a paycheck and stay 
home when they are sick, an increased risk of infectious 
disease is inevitable. As a Nation, we should have already 
learned this lesson. During the 2009 H1N1 flu epidemic, which 
killed more than 10,000 Americans, about one-third of infected 
workers went to work despite showing symptoms. This caused the 
disease to spread to as many as 7 million additional people.
    Even without a global health crisis, paid sick days are 
critical for public health. A recent 2020 working paper found 
that one year after enacting state laws allowing all workers to 
earn paid sick leave, those states saw an 11 percent reduction 
in influenza infections.
    Paid sick days also mean more productive employees and more 
profitable businesses. Our economy currently loses an estimated 
$234 billion each year due to reduced productivity from 
illness. Businesses are understandably hesitant to take on the 
additional expense of paid sick leave benefits. But even 
accounting for the cost of paid sick leave, studies show that 
businesses still come out ahead because of higher productivity 
and lower turnover.
    In Austin, Texas, for example, an analysis showed that a 
citywide paid sick days requirement would provide city 
businesses a net savings of more than $4 billion annually. The 
evidence is clear: access to paid sick days is critical for the 
health of our families, our communities, and our economy. 
Accordingly, 12 states, including Washington, D.C., and 22 
localities, have enacted laws that require employers to provide 
workers with paid sick days. But it is ultimately up to 
Congress to establish a national floor for the right to earn 
paid sick days.
    The Healthy Families Act will help achieve that goal 
through three key provisions. First, the bill guarantees 
employees in workplaces with 15 or more employees the right to 
earn 1 hour of paid sick or safe leave for every 30 hours 
worked up to 56 hours, or 7 days. In addition, the bill covers 
public sector employees without regard to size of the employing 
entity.
    Second, the bill permits employees to take leave for 
themselves or a family member for physical or mental illness, 
injury, preventative care, and for survivors of sexual assault, 
stalking, or domestic violence.
    And finally, the bill prohibits employers from firing or 
discriminating against employees for taking sick leave.
    Today's discussion is long overdue. It is simply 
inexcusable that millions of workers in the world's wealthiest 
national have no way to earn the paid sick days the need to 
care for themselves and their families.
    The committee also recognizes that we need to provide 
workers immediate relief in response to the coronavirus 
epidemic. And as we speak, the committee is considering a range 
of options for a Federal response that protects the health and 
economic security of workers and their families.
    Before I yield to the ranking member, I would like to 
submit a statement into the record from a champion for paid 
sick days and the lead sponsor of the Healthy Families Act, 
Representative Rosa DeLauro. I would also like to submit a 
statement into the record from the National Partnership for 
Women and Families, a leader in advocating for paid sick days. 
Without objection.
    I now recognize the distinguished ranking member for the 
purpose of making an opening statement.
    [The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 
                         Workforce Protections

    Today, we will discuss H.R. 1784, the Healthy Families Act, a 
proposal to establish paid sick leave as an essential workplace 
protection for our nation's workers.This hearing could not come at a 
more appropriate time. As we speak, the rapid spread of the coronavirus 
is highlighting the severe consequences of our failure to secure paid 
sick leave for millions of workers and their families.
    Across the country, public health officials are rightfully asking 
or requiring potentially infected Americans to stay home from work and 
avoid travel. But for many workers - particularly low-wage workers - 
taking time off when they are sick means losing the wages they need to 
cover basic expenses, including food and housing. Many have no choice 
but to work even though they are ill.
    We are deeply concerned about the potential impact of the 
coronavirus epidemic, and we are continuing to explore different 
options for providing workers access to paid sick leave on an emergency 
basis. Our nation's workers are particularly vulnerable to this 
emerging public health crisis because the United States is the only 
industrialized nation that does not require access to paid sick leave.
    For the more than 32 million American workers who cannot earn paid 
sick days, getting sick - whether it's a rare, infectious disease or 
the common cold - often means having to choose between prioritizing 
their health and sacrificing their paycheck. Unfortunately, access to 
paid sick days is particularly limited for the low-income workers who 
need it most.
    Of the bottom 10 percent of private-sector wage earners, just 3 in 
10 have access to paid sick days. Making matters worse, inadequate 
access to paid sick leave is particularly concentrated in service-
industry occupations that have frequent contact with the public. A 2016 
survey found that 86 percent of women in the fast food industry lacked 
access to paid sick days.
    For many workers, taking even a couple of unpaid days from work to 
recover from an illness could cost them a month's worth of utilities. 
As a result, workers often report to work even when they're ill, 
risking their health and the health of their coworkers. In 2009, 
researchers estimated that 20 million workers went to work sick.
    When so many people are unable to forgo a paycheck and stay home 
when they are sick, an increased risk of infectious disease is 
inevitable. As a nation, we should have already learned this lesson. 
During the 2009 H1N1 flu epidemic, which killed more than ten thousand 
Americans, about one-third of infected workers went to work despite 
showing symptoms. This caused the disease to spread to as many as 7 
million additional people.
    Even without a global health crisis, paid sick days are critical 
for public health. A recent 2020 working paper found that, one year 
after enacting state laws allowing all workers to earn paid sick leave, 
those states saw an 11 percent reduction in influenza infections.
    Paid sick days also mean more productive employees and more 
profitable businesses. Our economy currently loses an estimated $234 
billion each year due to reduced productivity from illness. Businesses 
are understandably hesitant to take on the additional expense of paid 
sick leave benefits. But, even accounting for the cost of paid sick 
leave, studies show that businesses still come out ahead because of 
higher productivity and lower turnover.
    In Austin, Texas, for example, an analysis showed that a citywide 
paid sick days requirement would provide city businesses a net savings 
of more than $4 billion annually. The evidence is clear: access to paid 
sick days is critical for the health of our families, our communities, 
and our economy. Accordingly, 12 states, including Washington,
    D.C. and twenty-two localities, have enacted laws that require 
employers to provide workers with paid sick days.
    But it is ultimately up to Congress to establish a national floor 
for the right to earn paid sick days. The Healthy Families Act will 
help achieve that goal through three key provisions:

   First, the bill guarantees employees in workplaces with 15 
        or more employees the right to earn one hour of paid sick or 
        safe leave for every 30 hours worked up to 56 hours, or 7 days. 
        Inaddition, the bill covers public sector employees without 
        regard to size of the employing entity.

   Second, the bill permits employees to take leave for 
        themselves or a family member for physical or mental illness, 
        injury, preventative care, and for survivors of sexual assault, 
        stalking, or domestic violence.

   Finally, the bill prohibits employers from firing or 
        discriminating against employees for taking sick leave.

    Today's discussion is long overdue. It is simply inexcusable that 
millions of workers in world's wealthiest nation have no way to earn 
the paid sick days they need to care for themselves and their families.
    The Committee also recognizes that we need to provide workers 
immediate relief in response to the coronavirus epidemic. As we speak, 
the Committee is considering a range of options for a federal response 
that protects the health and economic security of workers and their 
families.
    Before I yield to the Ranking Member, I would like to submit a 
statement into the record from a champion for paid sick days and the 
lead sponsor of the Healthy Families Act, Representative Rosa DeLauro.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The global spread 
of COVID-19, known more commonly as the novel coronavirus or 
just the coronavirus, has sparked conversations in recent weeks 
about health and safety in the workplace and paid sick leave 
policies. Committee Republicans have long supported legislative 
solutions that allow businesses of all sizes to develop 
innovative, personalized, and workable paid leave policies. 
Allowing business owners the flexibility to develop and offer 
tailored solutions that work best for their businesses and 
their employees can help ensure a positive and productive work 
environment and help small businesses remain competitive in a 
tight labor market.
    Take the Republican-led Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into 
law by President Trump, for example. This legislation included 
a tax credit for employers who voluntarily offer at least two 
weeks of paid family and medical leave to their employees.
    Another Republican-led initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working 
Families Flexibility Act, would allow private sector employers 
to offer their employees the choice of paid or comp time in 
lieu of cash wages for working overtime, a benefit currently 
available to public sector workers. An employee can decide when 
to use this comp time just as public sector employees can do.
    Just yesterday, President Trump made clear that he is 
interested in negotiations with Congress regarding additional 
paid sick leave proposals to help us get through the COVID-19 
outbreak. And I was told just as I was coming in here that 
those discussions have indeed begun. If you want to solve a 
problem like this, you do it on a bipartisan basis, not a 
partisan basis.
    This bill, the one that we are here to talk about, is not 
the answer. It is a partisan bill. I hope my colleagues on the 
other side are not using the coronavirus as an opportunity to 
prioritize partisan interest in H.R. 1784. Even if it passed 
the House, this bill has no chance of passage in the other body 
or becoming law. It is a distraction to the serious bipartisan 
work Congress needs to be doing with respect to the 
coronavirus.
    The costly Federal mandate contained in H.R. 1784 would do 
more harm than good and will have unintended consequences. As 
Ms. Milito notes in her testimony, a National Federation of 
Independent Businesses study of the economic impact of this 
bill showed that it would result in 430,000 jobs lost over a 
10-year period and loss of $652 billion--billion with a B--in 
cumulative real economic output.
    More troubling, small firms would account for 58 percent of 
all jobs lost and small farms would bear 50 percent of the lost 
output. Unfortunately, this sentiment seems to lost in the 
supporters of this bill, who seem determined to create 
additional hardships for small businesses by imposing a one-
size-fits-all government mandate.
    Employers are attentive and responsive to current and 
prospective employees' workplace concerns and preferences with 
for flexible leave policies. Instead of considering H.R. 1784, 
Congress should empower our Nation's business owners to develop 
and offer flexible and personalized solutions.
    In fact, the vast majority of employers are already 
responding to their employees' needs. According to the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, 73 percent of all private industry workers 
and 83 percent of all full-time workers have access to paid 
sick leave.
    Small businesses are pulling their weight, as well. 
According to NFIB, 73 percent of small employers offer paid 
time off to the majority of their full-time employees.
    The bottom line is paid sick leave benefits are important, 
but a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate is not the answer. In 
times of economic growth, as well as in times of crisis, job 
creators do not need additional Washington-knows-best Federal 
mandates weighing them down that will ultimately harm job 
creation.
    In the near term, Congress should be working with the Trump 
administration regarding policies that help employees rather 
than considering legislation which micromanages every 
employer's ability to operate their business.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about 
how the Federal Government can continue encouraging the private 
sector to develop solutions that meet the needs of workers and 
their families.
    And with that, I yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Byrne follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bradley Byrne, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 
                        on Workforce Protections

    The global spread of COVID-19, known more commonly as the 
coronavirus, has sparked conversations in recent weeks about health and 
safety in the workplace and paid sick leave policies.
    Committee Republicans have long supported legislative solutions 
that allow businesses of all sizes to develop innovative, personalized, 
and workable paid leave policies. Allowing business owners the 
flexibility to develop and offer tailored solutions that work best for 
their business and their employees can help ensure a positive and 
productive work environment and help small businesses remain 
competitive in a tight labor market.
    Take the Republican-led Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by 
President Trump, for example. This legislation included a tax credit 
for employers who voluntarily offer at least two weeks of paid family 
and medical leave to their employees. Another Republican led 
initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working Families Flexibility Act, would 
allow private-sector employers to offer their employees the choice of 
paid or comp time in lieu of cash wages for working overtime--a benefit 
currently available to public-sector workers. And the employee can 
decide when to use this comp time, just as public sector employees can 
do.
    Just yesterday, President Trump made clear that he is interested in 
negotiations with Congress regarding additional paid sick leave 
proposals to help us get through the COVID-19 outbreak. However, this 
bill is not the answer, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle are not using the coronavirus as an opportunity to prioritize 
partisan interest in H.R. 1784. Even if it passes the House, this bill 
has no chance of passage in the other body or becoming law. It is a 
distraction to the serious, bipartisan work Congress needs to be doing 
with respect to the coronavirus.
    The costly federal mandate contained in H.R. 1784 would do more 
harm than good and will have unintended consequences. As Ms. Milito 
notes in her testimony, a National Federation of Independent Business 
study of the economic impact of this bill showed that it could result 
in 430,000 jobs lost over a ten-year period and a loss of $652 billion 
in cumulative real economic output. More troubling, small firms would 
account for 58 percent of all jobs lost and small firms would bear 50 
percent of lost output. Unfortunately, this sentiment seems to be lost 
upon my Democratic colleagues who seem determined to create additional 
hardships for small businesses by imposing a one-size-fits-all 
government mandate.
    Employers are attentive and responsive to current and prospective 
employees' workplace concerns and preferences for flexible leave 
policies. Instead of considering H.R. 1784, Congress should empower our 
nation's business owners to develop and offer flexible and personalized 
solutions.
    In fact, the vast majority of employers are already responding to 
their employees' needs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 73 
percent of all private industry workers and 83 percent of full-time 
workers have access to paid sick leave. Small businesses are pulling 
their weight as well. According to the NFIB, 73 percent of small 
employers offer paid time off to the majority of their fulltime 
employees.
    The bottom line is paid sick leave benefits are important, but a 
one-size-fits-all federal mandate is not the answer. In times of 
economic growth as well as in times of crisis, job creators do not need 
additional Washington-knows-best, federal mandates weighing them down 
that will ultimately harm job creation. In the near term, Congress 
should be working with the Trump Administration regarding policies that 
help employees rather than considering legislation which micromanages 
every employer's ability to operate their business.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how the 
federal government can continue encouraging the private sector to 
develop solutions that meet the needs of workers and their families.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Without objection.
    All of the Members who wish to insert written statements 
into the record may do so by submitting them to the Committee 
Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. on 
March 24, 2020.
    I would now like to introduce our witnesses. Dr. Sarah Jane 
Glynn is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. 
She is a nationally recognized expert on family economic 
security with an emphasis on work-family supportive policies, 
such as paid sick days and paid family and medical leave.
    Ms. Renee J. Johnson is the senior government affairs 
manager to Main Street Alliance, a 501(c)(3) advocacy 
organization, with a national network of more than 30,000 small 
business owners throughout the United States.
    Ms. Elizabeth Milito serves as senior executive counsel 
with the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a 
position she has held since March 2004. Ms. Milito is 
responsible for managing litigation and amicus work for NFIB.
    Ms. Tanya L. Goldman is a senior analyst and attorney with 
the Job Quality Team at the Center for Law and Social Policy, 
CLASP. Prior to joining CLASP, Ms. Goldman worked at the U.S. 
Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, EEOC.
    Thank you all for being here. We appreciate all the 
witnesses for being here today, look forward to your testimony. 
Let me remind you that we have read your written statements and 
they will appear in full in the hearing record.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d) and committee practice, 
each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-
minute summary of your written statement. And let me also 
remind the witnesses that pursuant to Title 18 of the U.S. Code 
Section 1001, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully falsify 
any statement, representation, written document, or material 
fact presented to Congress or otherwise conceal or cover up a 
material fact.
    So before you begin your testimony, please remember to 
press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it 
will turn on and the members can hear you. And as you begin to 
speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After 4 
minutes, the light will turn yellow to signal that you have 1 
minute remaining. And when the light turns red, your 5 minutes 
have expired and we ask that you please wrap up your statement.
    We will let the entire panel make their presentations 
before we move to member questions. When answering a question, 
please remember to once again turn your microphone on.
    I will first recognize Dr. Glynn.

TESTIMONY OF SARAH JANE GLYNN, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR 
                       AMERICAN PROGRESS

    Dr. Glynn. Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member Byrne, and 
members of the committee, thank you very much for having the 
opportunity to speak to you today about the importance of paid 
sick days. My name is Sarah Jane Glynn and I am a senior fellow 
with the Center for American Progress and an expert on 
workplace policies, including paid sick days.
    Paid sick days are intended to address short-term 
illnesses, like colds or the flu or to care for a family member 
who is experiencing a similar short-term illness. It can also 
be used to access routine or preventative medical care. And 
there is also often the inclusion of safe days that can be used 
to address the aftermath of sexual or domestic violence. Paid 
family and medical leave is a separate policy that is intended 
to address more serious long-term issues, like cancer or 
recovering from surgery. So these are two related, but separate 
policies. They are not substitutes for one another. And so 
today I want to make sure that we are focusing on the shorter 
term leaves covered under paid sick.
    Currently, the United States is one of only a handful of 
countries across the globe that does not guarantee workers the 
right to any form of paid sick leave. And we are one of--we are 
the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee the 
right to any form of paid time off for any reason at all.
    As of March 2019, 27 percent of private industry workers, 
which translates to 32.5 million individuals, do not have 
access to a single paid sick day. Eleven states, the District 
of Columbia, and 22 localities have passed paid sick days laws 
on their books that have made a tremendous difference, but they 
have also resulted in really significant geographic 
disparities.
    In the Pacific states, for example, 91 percent of private 
industry workers have access to paid sick days. But in the East 
South Central region, which is where I live, only 62 percent of 
workers have access. And we know that low-wage workers are 
among those who are the least likely to have paid sick days; 70 
percent of workers who earn less than $10.49 per hour have 
access to a single paid sick day. Rural workers, workers of 
color, and Latinx workers in particular are all less likely to 
have access to paid sick leave.
    Women are disproportionately impacted by a lack of paid 
sick time, in part because they are the parents who are most 
likely to have to take time off to care for a sick child. In 
one survey of working parents, a third reported that they 
feared losing pay or losing their job if they needed to stay 
home to take care of their child, and their fears are not 
wrong. Access to paid sick days decreases the likelihood of job 
separation by up to 25 percent and those impacts are even 
stronger for working mothers.
    Understandably, we are all very focused on public health in 
this moment, but we also know that workers in public-facing 
roles are at an increased risk of contagion through these 
interactions with the public and they can pose an infection 
risk to the clients and customers that they serve. But service 
workers have one of the worst rates of access to paid sick 
leave; 42 percent or 11.7 million individuals working in the 
private sector lack access to paid sick time. Food service 
workers are especially unlikely to have access to paid sick 
days. And as a result, we know that they are very likely to go 
to work when they are sick.
    And it is easy to try to blame individuals for this, but 
given the extremely low wages across their industry, they can 
be placed in an impossible situation. Most report that when the 
go to work sick it is because their either can't afford to lose 
pay or because they fear being fired or penalized as a result 
of calling out. And this is a particularly salient issue in 
this moment given the current global spread of COVID-19.
    Research has consistently shown across space and time that 
access to paid sick days increases the ability of workers to 
stay home when they are ill. So it is not difficult to 
understand why a policy like this has enormous potential to 
mitigate the effects of the coronavirus.
    The current patchwork of state and local policies that is 
in place right now is not sufficient to protect workers and it 
is vital that Congress works to create a Federal floor on paid 
sick days. I understand why folks are very focused on this 
current pandemic, but we also need to be forward thinking. 
People will continue to get sick even after we have moved past 
this moment in time. So establishing a Federal standard on paid 
sick days is going to be incredibly important, both in this 
moment and in the future, to help ensure that all workers are 
able to access medical care to prevent the spread of contagion 
and to make sure that they can care for their loved ones 
regardless of where they work, regardless of whom they work 
for, and to ensure that we can protect the health of our 
families, individuals, and our communities.
    Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Glynn follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Johnson, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.

   TESTIMONY OF RENEE J. JOHNSON, SENIOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS 
                 MANAGER, MAIN STREET ALLIANCE

    Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Adams, Ranking 
Member Byrne, and members of the Education and Labor 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. Thank you for this 
opportunity to testify today regarding H.R. 1784, the Healthy 
Families Act.
    My name is Renee Johnson and I am the senior government 
affairs manager at Main Street Alliance, a national network of 
over 30,000 small business owners, who advocate for public 
issues that impact their businesses, employees, and 
communities. Our members across the country support a standard 
baseline of paid sick days that covers all workers. The need 
for this policy is more urgent than ever.
    At the national level, we support the Healthy Families Act, 
which guarantees 7 paid sick days. At the state level our 
members have played an essential role and winning many of these 
laws in 11 states, the District of Columbia, and 22 localities 
across the country.
    Increasing access to paid sick days strengthens small 
businesses and boosts economic productivity. When employees go 
to work sick they fail to perform to their full potential and 
also risk infecting coworkers. The loss in productivity to the 
U.S. economy due to illness in the workforce has been 
established $234 billion with a major portion of this coming 
from workers going to their jobs sick.
    Productive workers make for stronger businesses. As Main 
Street Alliance member Janet Jones of Source Booksellers in 
Detroit stated, ``When employees are healthy, they are happier, 
make good recommendations, and take better care of customers.'' 
Policies such as earned paid sick time are a win-win situation 
for the businesses, the employees, and the community.
    A baseline standard for paid sick days also boosts small 
businesses' bottom lines by helping to increase employee 
retention and reduce costs associated with turnover, which can 
cost thousands of dollars per position. Workers who earn paid 
sick time are less likely to leave their employer. Retaining 
well-trained and valued employees helps businesses of all 
sizes, but can be especially important for small businesses 
where the loss of a single employee can have a significant 
impact on operational and labor costs.
    The value of offering paid sick days to employees can be 
seen by our member Tony Sandkamp of Sandkamp Woodworks in New 
Jersey. He stated that, ``Since I started providing paid sick 
days at my businesses, employees have been happier and more 
productive. Far from abusing it, my employees stave their paid 
sick days for when they really needed it. Since introducing the 
policy we have not lost a single employee. In fact, we've added 
two.''
    Providing all workers access to paid sick days will also 
help lower system-wide healthcare costs, saving taxpayer 
dollars for individuals and businesses. Ensuring access to paid 
sick time for workers who currently do not have any could 
prevent over 1 million emergency room visits a year, saving 1 
billion in annual healthcare costs.
    Improving the health of our communities while lowering 
healthcare costs is important to a small business owner. As 
Main Street Alliance member Peter Frigeri of Gaia Flowers in 
Las Vegas, Nevada, put it, ``My business is only as healthy as 
our community, and giving people a chance to stay home and 
recover from an illness is crucial for public health. When 
people work sick, it stresses our healthcare system, hurting 
all of us, including small businesses that face higher and 
higher healthcare costs.''
    It is for these reasons that we see small business owners 
support paid sick days. A national survey of small business 
owners found that 64 percent supported a paid sick days minimum 
standard, like the Healthy Families Act.
    Where paid sick days has been adopted, support from small 
businesses continues to be strong. In 2007, San Francisco 
became the first city to adopt a paid sick time policy. Three 
years after passage of the law, two-thirds of employers 
supported it. Even business groups who did not initially 
support the policy came to see the benefits of the law. The 
director of Golden Gate Restaurant Association said, ``Paid 
sick days is the best policy for least cost.''
    Fear that a paid sick days policy would have a negative 
impact on job growth, business formation, and relocation have 
not occurred. In Connecticut, business formation increased 
following the adoption of paid sick days. And in Seattle, one 
year after the policy's adoption, the city showed stronger 
growth and business formation.
    Implementation of new laws is also relatively smooth. An 
evaluation of Seattle's paid sick time law found that over two-
thirds of employers did not have difficulty implementing the 
law and those that did cite challenges found them to be 
temporary.
    On behalf of our small business members, I strongly 
encourage the committee to help ensure a stronger, more 
equitable economy by securing paid sick days for all workers. 
As the impact of expanding coronavirus unfolds, a stronger 
safety net, including paid sick days, is more urgent than ever.
    I want to thank the chairwoman and ranking member for 
hosting this hearing and look forward to answering any 
questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Milito, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.

   TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH MILITO, ESQUIRE, SENIOR EXECUTIVE 
           COUNSEL, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER

    Ms. Milito. Thank you to Chairwoman Adams and Ranking 
Member Byrne for inviting me to speak today. I also want to 
thank the additional committee members who are in attendance 
and the staff, too, who is here today.
    My name is Elizabeth Milito and I am an attorney in the 
National Federation of Independent Businesses' Small Business 
Legal Center. NFIB is a member-driven organization that 
represents about 300,000 small and independent businesses 
across the country.
    Consider the very types of businesses you frequent: pizza 
parlor, auto shop, dry cleaner, hair salon. Some have employees 
that are strictly full-time, others strictly part-time or 
hourly, some have both. These are the typical NFIB members who 
employ around 5 to 15 employees. Only about 12 percent have a 
human resources professional and the business owner or spouse 
is often the H.R. point person. Over 50 percent still do 
payroll in-house.
    I describe our membership to illustrate one of the key 
points of my testimony. There is no thing as a one-size-fits-
all policy that works for every business or every industry. 
Employer mandates come with a cost and not all businesses can 
afford that cost.
    We appreciate the reasons the bill has been proposed, but 
NFIB has long imposed inflexible or mandated leave requirements 
for a variety of reasons. And today I just want to touch on 
three concerns that we have with the Healthy Families Act.
    First, small businesses are an employer of choice in our 
communities because of the flexibility they offer their 
employees. In fact, most small businesses already provide their 
employees with paid time off. They provide flexible, mutually 
beneficial arrangements that allow employees time off when 
necessary in a fiscally responsible way.
    The bill's one-size-fits-all mandate would handicap 
businesses' ability to attract workers at a very critical time. 
Finding qualified workers is NFIB members' number one cited 
problem. And one of the ways that small businesses compete with 
larger companies is to provide flexible leave policies.
    Small employers aren't as regimented in their leave 
policies as larger firms. So while the vast majority of small 
businesses offer paid time leave, most do not divide it up 
between vacation days, sick days, and family leave. The Healthy 
Families Act would add unnecessarily costs and hurdles to the 
process that small business owners have developed for their 
businesses. It will require more recordkeeping and place 
restrictions on time off that don't currently exist. If you can 
only afford to give your workers 10 days of paid time off and 
the government mandates 5 days of paid sick leave, then your 
employees only have 5 days of vacation leave.
    A second concern relates to the unintended and hidden costs 
the bill would impose. Mandated leave is not a free benefit for 
employees. In a small business with a finite amount of 
resources, this means less money is available for wage 
increases and hiring additional employees.
    As I mentioned, small business owners typically have few 
administrative staff and little human resources experience. 
This act would impose substantial recordkeeping requirements, 
including new leave tracking, notification, documentation, and 
reporting requirements.
    Finally, the bill, my third concern relates to what I call 
``death by a thousand mandates.'' Another Federal-mandated 
leave program will further complicate the patchwork quilt of 
ever-changing labor laws. When Oregon considered its paid leave 
proposal a few years ago, the legislative record was replete 
with opposition from small business owners.
    And I just want to quote from a submission from one small 
business owner, ``We compete in a world market and everything 
the state or the Federal Government does burdens us with more 
and more unfunded mandates that make us less competitive in 
world markets. So now I have fewer employees. And since there 
is not enough income after all my employment costs are met, I 
end up not getting paid anything for my family for all the work 
that I do. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that we 
farmers don't make enough to subsidize all the wonderful 
benefits that you would like to see employees entitled to. I 
have workers asking for work and there is plenty for them to 
do, but at the high cost that Oregon requires me to pay, I have 
to limit the number that I can hire.''
    It may seem great to mandate more benefits to employees, 
but the hidden costs are fewer jobs. During times of 
emergencies like now, flexibility is even more important than 
ever before. NFIB is monitoring the current situation and 
working to support our members. We have been providing them 
with the CDC's guidance to prevent workplace exposure and it 
includes the recommendation that employers ``maintain flexible 
policies to allow employees to stay home and care for 
themselves or a sick family member.''
    Employers must be prepared for emergencies, but they can't 
be saddle with more mandates or costs. On behalf of the small 
business owners of NFIB, thank you for focusing on this 
important issue and for allowing NFIB to be represented here 
today.
    [The statement of Ms. Milito follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Goldman, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.

TESTIMONY OF TANYA GOLDMAN, J.D., SENIOR POLICY ANALYST CENTER 
               FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY (CLASP)

    Ms. Goldman. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member 
Byrne, and members of the committee. My name is Tanya Goldman. 
I am a senior policy attorney at the Center for Law and Social 
Policy, or CLASP, an anti-poverty organization that promotes 
effective Federal and state policies for low-income people. I 
am truly honored to be here at this moment to speak to the 
central importance of paid sick days, especially as a critical 
need for low-income workers and their families to stay employed 
without jeopardizing their health or economic security.
    I testify based on my experience on paid sick and safe days 
at the Federal, state, and local levels. Previously I was 
deputy chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage 
and Hour Division, when the Department issued the final rule 
implementing President Obama's executive order establishing 
paid sick leave for Federal contractors.
    And since 2016, at CLASP we have been convening and 
providing technical assistance to state and local labor 
enforcement agencies, advocates, and worker organizations to 
share successes, lessons, and innovations in implementing and 
enforcing paid sick days policies. This convening has grown 
because of tremendous momentum in the enactment of local and 
state paid sick days laws. There are now 12 states, including 
D.C., and 22 cities with paid sick days laws. I want to 
highlight three key points.
    First, the coronavirus underscores the urgent need for a 
national paid sick days law. Over 32 million workers do not 
have any paid sick days. When these workers need to get a flu 
shot, recover, care for their sick child, or take time because 
of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, they face 
impossible trade-offs between their own and their family's 
health versus its economic stability. And during this public 
health pandemic they can't stay home if they are sick.
    Low-wage and part-time workers who often work in public-
facing professions, like food service and child care, are least 
likely to have access to this basic right. For these workers, 
taking unpaid sick time can lead to foregone wages and even a 
lost job. Our failure to enact a national law has devastating 
consequences for individuals and families on a daily basis and 
is contributing to a national public health crisis.
    Second, there is an overwhelming support for paid sick days 
laws. In a national poll, people across party lines agreed that 
paid sick days should be a basic worker's right. Eighty-six 
percent favor a law providing 7 paid sick days annually for 
full-time employees. We see that support reflected in states 
and localities.
    Third, with over a decade of experience in implementing 
these laws, paid sick days are a no-brainer. Paid sick days 
help decrease the spread of illness, like the flu, they allow 
working people to care for themselves and for their family's 
health, and businesses are able to implement them. As detailed 
in my written testimony, studies show existing paid sick days 
laws don't harm jobs or growth. To the contrary, the Institute 
for Women's Policy Research estimates employers actually save 
money in additional to large public health savings.
    We know that there are critical elements to successful paid 
sick days laws. These include targeted education and outreach 
strategies that ensure employers are aware of their 
responsibilities and all employees know their rights, 
partnerships between community-based groups and government 
agencies, and measures to address workers' legitimate fears of 
retaliation should they exercise their rights.
    We see many of these elements in the Healthy Families Act. 
Most of all, the state and local progress also demonstrates 
that paid sick days are practical, successful, and broadly 
supported. A law like the Healthy Families Act will 
significantly improve working people's lives.
    Moms Rising member McKendree Rogers, a mother of two who 
lives in Washington state, is a testament to this. McKendree, 
like many employees who lack paid sick days, worked in the 
restaurant industry. Raising young children without paid sick 
days was understandably a constant source of stress. Missing 
just one day of pay threatened her ability to make ends meet. 
But Washington state passed a paid sick days law in 2016.
    McKendree now works in early childhood education and 
finally has access to this critical right. Just last week, she 
was able to take time off to go to the doctor. She says it is 
incredibly important to her to take care of her health and her 
children's health as well as stay at home when she or her 
children are sick without risking her paycheck.
    In conclusion, providing adequate paid sick days to all 
workers, including low-wage and part-time workers and people of 
color, demands national action. While state and local paid sick 
days laws have been enormously important in increasing access 
and modeling successful approaches, a jurisdiction-by-
jurisdiction strategy leaves out far too many people. And 
leaving it to businesses alone is not the solution.
    We cannot achieve the health, economic, and poverty 
reduction benefits without a national standard that sets a 
critical floor for all, regardless of where they live or for 
whom they work.
    Thank you for the chance to testify and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Goldman follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Under Committee Rule 
8(a) we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I 
now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Seven cases of the coronavirus have been diagnosed in my 
home state of North Carolina and more are expected. We know 
that communities across the country are bracing for impacts to 
public health and local economies, and workers across the 
country are struggling with the prospect of working while sick 
or the financial difficulty of no pay during a required self-
quarantine.
    Ms. Goldman, how is the lack of a national standard on paid 
sick days putting our communities at risk?
    Ms. Goldman. The U.S. is one of the only industrialized 
nations without universal access to paid sick leave. As I 
noted, 32 million workers and 70 percent of low-wage workers, 
those in the bottom decile of wage earners, lack access to paid 
sick days and they are particularly likely to work in public-
facing professions. This means that if they are sick and can't 
afford to stay home, they are more likely to impact their own 
health and that of their coworkers, the public, as well as 
their children's classmates and caregivers and teachers if they 
send their children to school sick.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Dr. Glynn, if the Healthy 
Families Act had been enacted into law years ago, would workers 
be less vulnerable to the current public health crisis around 
coronavirus?
    Dr. Glynn. Yes. I mean, I think it is important to note 
that there would still be public health concerns. Access to 
paid sick days is not the only tool that we need to address 
these types of pandemics. But we know from research that has 
been done under previous public health emergencies that paid 
sick days are one very important piece of the puzzle.
    There is an estimated 1,500 people who died with the H1N1 
epidemic as a result of contagions that were caused by a lack 
of paid sick days. And the CDC has noted during previous health 
outbreaks that paid sick days are one important piece of making 
sure that people are able to self-quarantine. So without that 
policy we would expect to see far greater spread of the 
disease.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Ms. Goldman, could you add to 
that?
    Ms. Goldman. Sure. We know from state and local evidence 
that paid sick days help prevent illness and help prevent the 
spread of illness. Workers who don't have paid sick days are 
less likely to get preventative and routine medical care, like 
their flu shots. They are also more likely to go to work sick.
    Chairwoman Adams. Okay. What, Ms. Goldman, what are the 
unique concerns for access to paid sick days in a public health 
crisis, such as the current outbreak that we have now? What can 
Congress do to ensure that working people can afford to heed 
the recommendation of public health officials, such as self-
quarantine?
    Ms. Goldman. The coronavirus is really exposing the reality 
that low-wage workers face every day. How can I stay home if I 
am sick or need to care for a family member if I can't afford 
to lose those wages? When the CDC and public health experts are 
recommending that people who are exposed to the coronavirus 
stay home for 14 days, low-wage workers cannot afford to do 
that.
    Chairwoman Adams. Okay. Ms. Johnson, how would ensuring 
that workers have sustained income through access to paid sick 
days now during the public health emergency promote the 
longevity for small businesses?
    Ms. Johnson. We see earned sick leave as an essential 
policy that ensures that workers can take time away from work 
if they are ill or need to take care of a sick family member 
without fear of loss of income. And passing a national paid 
sick days policy would go a long way in helping employers and 
employee cope with the virus and prevent its spread.
    Paid leave policies work best in a functioning economy with 
time to ramp up earned sick day benefits. And we are seeing 
many advocates and elected officials begin to consider 
emergency paid sick day policies to handle this crisis. To make 
these laws work and rapidly increased the availability of paid 
sick days, impacted small businesses will need immediate cash 
flow for their support, as well.
    Chairwoman Adams. Okay. Ms. Goldman and Dr. Glynn, why is 
it important that Congress take action to respond to both our 
present emergency and guarantee workers paid sick days under 
the Healthy Families Act? Dr. Glynn?
    Dr. Glynn. So I think it is important to note that these 
are two overlapping but separate issues. So certainly, what is 
happening right now requires an immediate response. Paid leave 
that is accrued over time, like the paid leave that would be 
available through the Healthy Families Act, is not necessarily 
appropriate when you are talking about an immediate emergency 
like we are facing with COVID-19.
    But I also think it is important for us to keep in mind 
that this is one moment that we are dealing with right now. 
People will continue to be sick, there will be future 
pandemics, and people will need to access routine and 
preventative care in the future. So taking a multipronged 
approach is absolutely appropriate in this moment.
    Chairwoman Adams. Okay. I have got one second, but I am out 
of time now, so I am going to now recognize the ranking member 
for the purpose of questioning the witnesses.
    Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Milito, 
businesses of all sizes are being affected by COVID-19. Why is 
it important that businesses have flexibility when they are 
dealing with issues like sick leave for their employees?
    Ms. Milito. Thank you. So the small business owners who I 
have been in contact with--and we are doing a major outreach, 
we are doing a webinar for our members; we are pushing that, as 
I said in my statement, the CDC information--they are honest 
and fair employers. They want to do right by their employees 
all the time, but particularly now. And it is clear that this 
presents an extreme business challenge.
    My members are focused right now on keeping, first and 
foremost, their employees healthy, their customers healthy, and 
their communities healthy, too, and, you know, as much as 
possible keeping their businesses running at this time. This is 
a really challenging time until this coronavirus runs its 
course.
    But we caution Congress against rushing to impose any new 
mandates that will do more harm than good in the long term. 
Paid leave programs were not designed for the entire workforce 
to be out at once. And this bill is certainly not the solution 
for the current problem.
    Again, the CDC is offering employers to offer flexible 
policies, and that goes with what our members tell us all the 
time. They need flexibility more so now than ever before.
    Mr. Byrne. So looking at H.R. 1784, do you think it will 
restrict the flexibility the businesses need to deal with this 
issue?
    Ms. Milito. Yeah, absolutely it would. I mean, Dr. Glynn 
talked about, you know, different policies and, again, that is 
going back to kind of a siloed leave approach, and we are 
seeing that our members have moved away from that. The paid 
time off policy is what works for their businesses; less 
recordkeeping, not, you know, tracking every day off and 
requiring doctors' notes and requiring notices and requiring an 
updated employee handbook. That is not what they need right 
now.
    They want sick employees to stay home. That is what I am 
hearing from our members.
    Mr. Byrne. Your testimony highlights how small employers 
use benefits such as paid sick leave to compete for workers. 
How would H.R. 1784's restrictive mandate inhibit a small 
employer's ability to attract and retain workers?
    Ms. Milito. Well, it may not be the intention of the bill, 
but the Healthy Families Act would disrupt current employer-
paid leave offerings. And as I have said time and time again, 
the majority of small businesses, the majority of employers do 
offer paid leave, and this would really upset what they have 
right now.
    For example, if an employer's existing paid leave policy 
fails to meet all of the requirements of the act, the 
employer's plan would need to be amended to comply with the 
Healthy Families Act. In addition, it is unclear how the paid 
sick requirements in the bill would impact PTO plans. Would 
those still be permitted? Because, again, they are not the 
siloed different compartment things. And more and more 
employers each year are offering PTO plans in lieu of other 
employer-paid leave programs. It would just really hinder the 
flexibility.
    Congress should build on progress that is being made by 
offering incentives to employers to do more, not risk the 
unintended consequence of this bill, which loads on more 
mandates, recordkeeping, and costs.
    Mr. Byrne. Ms. Milito, supporters of H.R. 1784 claim it 
excludes employers who are currently offering paid sick leave 
to their employees from the paid sick leave mandate, so that if 
an employer has a paid sick leave policy in place, this bill 
will have no impact on the business owner. Do you believe that 
to be the case?
    Ms. Milito. Not at all. First of all, the act does not 
supersede any of the state or local laws that provide for 
greater paid sick time or leave rights. So it is going to still 
force employers to comply with this patchwork quilt that is 
existing with the 22, you know, municipalities that we have 
heard about from the other witnesses here today.
    I say in essence it would require an employer to start from 
scratch, to take the onion apart. Here is what we have, here is 
what, you know, our municipality is doing, here is what our 
state is doing, here is what our employers tell us--our 
employees tell us they want. So peeling the onion apart and 
then putting the layers back together, it really stinks.
    Mr. Byrne. Yeah, I agree with that. You know, I remember 
back when the Congress passed the Family Medical Leave Act, it 
was as if they had completely forgotten that they had 
previously passed the Americans With Disabilities Act. And when 
they passed that, they completely forgot that there are state 
worker's compensation laws out there. So onions are all over 
the place.
    We have a specific crisis right now. And it seems to me, 
and I think what I hear you saying is your members, the 
businesses in America, want to be a part of the solution. These 
are their employees, their customers. They can't operate if 
they can't get control on this. And by putting this mandate on 
them, we have actually taken a serious crisis and made it 
worse. And I don't think that is what Congress should be doing.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. The gentleman from 
California, Mr. Takano, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, for this very 
critical hearing on the need for a universal paid sick leave 
program.
    The United States is lagging behind the majority of 
industrialized nations that have some form of paid sick leave. 
As has been noted, about 32 million people lack access to paid 
sick days. In the wake of the spread of COVID-19, it is 
extremely important that people stay home to reduce the spread 
of the virus.
    Unfortunately, workers and their families cannot afford to 
stay home. There has been extensive reporting that low-wage 
workers and those with frequent contact with the public are 
more likely to go to work while sick because they are less 
likely to have access to any form of paid sick leave. Missing a 
few days of work without pay is the equivalent of a family 
losing their monthly budget for food and healthcare.
    In the absence of a Federal law, several cities and states 
have enacted different laws requiring paid sick days.
    Ms. Goldman, my first question is for you. What impact have 
these laws at the state and local level had on overall public 
health and the local economies?
    Ms. Goldman. The impact--thank you, Congressman Takano. The 
impact has been very helpful. Where we have state and local 
laws that have passed--states and localities that have passed 
paid sick days, one study has shown significant reductions in 
flu-like infection rates. In a study of San Francisco, after 
their ordinance was passed, a quarter of employees reported 
that paid sick days improved their ability to care for their 
and their family's health, with particular benefits for Black, 
Latinx, and low-wage workers. In addition, the San Francisco 
study reflected that parent with paid sick days were less 
likely to send their sick children to school, improving those 
children's health, as well as the health of their classmates 
and teachers.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you for that answer. How has job growth 
and employment been impacted in the various cities and states 
that have instituted paid sick day laws?
    Ms. Goldman. The studies of economic impact have showed 
that the existing sick days laws benefit employers and 
employees, and have not harmed jobs or growth. The Institute 
for Women's Policy Research estimates that employers will 
actually save money in addition to public health savings. For 
example, in Massachusetts, they expect the law there to save 
employers close to $50 million annually.
    After San Francisco's law was passed, their study of San 
Francisco showed that the percentage growth in civilian 
employment was strong and exceeded the average growth of 
surrounding counties. And I will just note that Seattle and 
D.C. auditors have also done studies that showed that the laws 
did not discourage businesses from locating in those 
jurisdictions.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Ms. Goldman. Today the World Health 
Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. Dr. Glynn, in 
your written testimony you stated that, ``Research on the 2009 
H1N1 pandemic estimated that an additional 5 million people 
contracted the virus due the lack of workplace policies like 
paid sick days.'' What impact, Dr. Glynn, would a Federal 
policy requiring paid sick days have on public health and the 
spread of infectious diseases like COVID-19?
    Dr. Glynn. So while it's obviously too early to have 
figures like we have looking in hindsight to the H1N1 epidemic, 
there is a tremendous amount of evidence that indicates this 
would be a really vital public policy intervention to help 
spread--to help halt the spread of the disease.
    You know, the CDC is calling for people to practice self-
quarantine, to practice social distancing, and that is very 
difficult to do when you still have to report to work. So by 
covering the millions of workers who currently do not have 
access to paid sick days, we can ensure that they are able to 
stay home when they need to recover themselves and to reduce 
the spread of contagion.
    Again, we don't have exact figures that we can put on to 
that right now, but we are talking about literally millions of 
people right now who are having to make that trade-off between 
paying their bills and being able to stay safe.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. As Congress continues to 
develop its response to COVID-19, why is it important to ensure 
that workers have access to sick days now and also have access 
to paid sick days under the Healthy Families Act?
    Dr. Glynn. So I think an emergency response is important to 
ensure that people can start staying home immediately if that 
is what their medical providers are recommending to them. So an 
earned sick time proposal like the Healthy Families Act is not 
going to help someone who needs to stay home tomorrow if it is 
not already in place. But like I said earlier, we need to be 
thinking towards the future, as well. We can't always be trying 
to play catch-up. And so by passing something like the Healthy 
Families Act today we can help to stave off future epidemics 
and pandemics that may be coming.
    Mr. Takano. Wow. Thank you, Dr. Glynn.
    The Healthy Families Act is commonsense policy. While paid 
sick days are especially critical to workers as we respond to 
COVID-19, it will be necessary for workers across this country 
to still have access to paid sick leave once the pandemic is 
over.
    Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time, Madam 
Chair.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I will yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Wright, you are 
recognized.
    Mr. Wright. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, to hear the 
other side you would think that small businesses are ignoring 
the needs of the workers, and we know that is not true. Because 
they know that without healthy workers, they don't have a 
business.
    But what is really entertaining to me is to hear over and 
over again people on the other side saying that the United 
States is lagging behind. The United States is lagging behind 
other countries. we are lagging behind the rest of the world, 
when just the opposite is true. Because the rest of the world 
is lagging behind the United States. They are lagging behind 
the United States in economic growth and job growth. There is a 
reason for that.
    Do we really want to be like Europe? Do we want to really 
be like South America? Because every time we go down this road 
with more government mandates, it always sounds great, it 
always sounds wonderful, and there is always a downside. And 
quite often that downside is an economic downside of fewer jobs 
or a loss of jobs.
    Ms. Milito, if this were enacted what type of business, 
specifically, would be hurt by it most?
    Ms. Milito. In talking to our members and in surveying our 
members in jurisdictions where paid leave mandates have passed 
and been imposed, it is clearly restaurants, retail, those with 
turnover, seasonal, are hardest hit with this. And it is the 
administrative costs and the headaches that come with this.
    Ranking Member Byrne mentioned the Family Medical Leave 
Act. Laudable goal. Started as, I think, a 12-page document 
there. And then, the next thing you know, we have 200-plus 
pages of regulations now of FMLA.
    Mr. Wright. Right.
    Ms. Milito. I talk to businesses all the time that look at 
50 as kind of mark they don't want to reach because of the 
headaches, the recordkeeping, the cost associated with the 
FMLA. So the administrative costs are real. I hear about them. 
We see them in our survey data.
    Mr. Wright. So the regulation data itself is preventing 
growth in those businesses because they don't want to encounter 
that administrative burden?
    Ms. Milito. Exactly.
    Mr. Wright. Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from 
Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me just start by 
saying that I have the utmost respect for small and independent 
business owners. I truly do believe that they are the backbone 
of our communities. And I always weigh decisions on things like 
this in terms of how it will affect those smaller businesses.
    But, at the same time, I am deeply concerned that we are 
the only highly developed country without a paid sick leave 
policy. I think there are significant public health 
considerations and we are right in middle of one now, as 
several people here have observed.
    And I just want to start, Ms. Milito, with, you know, your 
testimony, your written testimony, talks about how a one-size-
fits-all policy doesn't work and that it is not fair to smaller 
businesses. But my concern is that if we don't have a one-size-
fits-all employers standard for paid sick leave in this 
country, how do we reassure the public in times like these?
    Let me just give you an example. If the public doesn't have 
confidence that the small business deli down the street has a 
paid sick leave policy, I would suggest to you that what is 
going to happen, especially in times like this where we are in 
a period of people having fear of going out in public and 
patronizing businesses, what you are going to have is that 
people are going to stay away from that small deli because they 
are going to think, well, I don't know if their employees are 
going to work sick or not. They might just stay away 
altogether.
    You identified the industries that would be hardest hit as 
restaurants and retail, among others. And I would suggest to 
you that those are exactly the businesses that people will not 
patronize because of fear of encountering sick workers who are 
there on the job. Whereas if we had some sort of national paid 
leave policy, people could be reassured that the people they 
are encountering in their local deli, in their restaurant, in 
their store are healthy because they wouldn't be at work 
otherwise.
    I want to just talk for a moment, and I know you place 
great reliance on honest and fair employers, I wrote a couple 
quotes down, who encourage--we need to be encouraging 
employers, we need flexibility. You said we need to offer 
incentives to employers to do more. But, you know, that doesn't 
seem to always work.
    One of the examples I would give you is that in 2017, when 
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, which gave corporations 
large tax cuts, as we know, with the idea being that those tax 
cuts would be put back into the workers' pockets, what happened 
instead is that we have ended up funding dividends to 
shareholders and increased executive pay and we haven't seen 
that money going back into the workers' pockets. So I don't 
know that incentives to employers are enough.
    One of the things I would just like to address in your 
written testimony, you state that most small employers, and you 
say 73 percent of them, ``offer paid time off to the majority 
of their full-time employees and 67 percent of them offer 2 
weeks or more of leave.'' Well, first of all, I just want to--
your only citation in your written testimony is to a poll 
conducted by your organization of small--of independent 
business owners. It is a self-reporting poll, correct? So it 
relies on the employer to give truthful answers, right?
    Ms. Milito. It is an NFIB Research Foundation poll.
    Ms. Wild. And NFIB is the organization that you work for, 
correct?
    Ms. Milito. That is correct.
    Ms. Wild. So those statistics, assuming that they are 
correct and that they were properly self-reported, don't 
account for any part-time employees, true?
    Ms. Milito. No, that is not true. I think you read that 
there--the majority of employers offered leave. I am sorry, I 
missed your quote there.
    Ms. Wild. Well, your--
    Ms. Milito. But I think it might--
    Ms. Wild. Your quote--
    Ms. Milito. I think our--yeah.
    Ms. Wild. The quote from your report was, ``Most small 
employers, 73 percent, offer PTO to the majority of their full-
time employees.'' Okay? So can we agree that part-time workers 
are becoming more and more prevalent in our economy today?
    Ms. Milito. I can't speak to the numbers of part-time 
versus full-time workers there.
    Ms. Wild. But you--
    Ms. Milito. But what I can tell you is that the majority of 
NFIB members and small businesses as a whole offer paid time 
off. And Ms. Johnson I think used about the same number.
    Ms. Wild. Well, when you say ``the majority--''
    Ms. Milito. The 73 percent to match there.
    Ms. Wild.--you say 73 percent, to full-time employees. But 
those statistics don't account for part-time employees. And we 
know from your own numbers that 27 percent of small employers, 
27 percent, a quarter, more than a quarter, do not offer paid 
sick leave to the majority of their full-time employees. Right?
    Ms. Milito. What I can say is--
    Ms. Wild. Using your statistics.
    Ms. Milito.--if a business can afford to offer paid leave, 
it is a great benefit and my members tell me that. They would 
like to offer paid leave and those that do not, I said in my 
opening statement, mandates come with a cost and not all small 
businesses can afford this mandate, the mandate of paid leave. 
And that is the fact of the matter. I mean, it is Economics 
101. I wish they all could, but they cannot.
    Chairwoman Adams. The gentlelady is out of time.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you. My time is up. I yield.
    Chairwoman Adams. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Milito, I appreciate 
you recognizing in your testimony there is no one-size-fits-all 
policy that works for every business or industry. It is that 
very reason that we should be cautious as lawmakers of creating 
reactionary policies that result in stifling business.
    You hear about the businesses that would be happy or are 
happy to provide that leave. They have that option. You don't 
hear about the businesses that are unhappy when they are 
required to provide that leave because they are not in 
existence. They have closed up shop because they can't shoulder 
the burdens that come with being mandated to provide that 
leave.
    Many small businesses exist because the owners were tired 
of the bureaucracy they faced with rigid workplace policies. 
These entrepreneurs wanted to take matters into their own hands 
and create an opportunity in which they can allow employees to 
customize benefit packages that work for them. Lawmakers should 
not take that away from them.
    In my home state of Virginia, we have 1.5 million people 
who are employed by small businesses with small businesses 
having an average size of 10 employees. In fact, 99.5 percent 
of Virginia businesses are small businesses. They have a 
significant impact on the economy with an average of $500,000 
in gross sales per year and are a large part of what makes 
local communities so vibrant. And I am continuing to look for 
ways to empower businesses to give more choices to their 
employees.
    Unfortunately, what we have seen over the last General 
Assembly session in Virginia is a step backward from those 
policies that have made Virginia the best state in the country 
in which to do business or to open a small business or to run a 
small business. The number one state as ranked by CNBC in the 
entire country. But the policies that we have adopted, make no 
mistake, this is a point of inflection in Virginia's rankings. 
And I worry that the policies that have been adopted over the 
past 2 months in Virginia are going to result in our rankings 
being driven down, businesses locating in Virginia less, few 
businesses opening in Virginia, and more businesses closing.
    I had frantic small business owners messaging me directly 
as these policies were being debated, assuring me that they 
would have to close if the bills passed. Now, not all of them 
did pass. We retained our right to work law, thankfully. But a 
number of others did and we can't make those same mistakes at 
the Federal level.
    Ms. Milito, does the inflexibility of H.R. 1784's 
proscriptive mandate limit a small employer's ability to offer 
other benefits that their employees may prefer, such as a pay 
increase or flexible paid time off banks?
    Ms. Milito. It does. I mean, I think when we poll our 
members they oppose mandates because of the assumption that 
every business of any type can afford to offer the same sort of 
benefits as larger companies, and that is just not so. And in 
the long run, as you are hearing from your friends who own 
businesses in Virginia, in the long run if a company can't 
sustain a benefits plan, especially a mandated benefits plan, 
it is ultimately going to hurt the workers because what is 
going to happen, the business is going to end up shutting its 
door.
    And that is what, unfortunately, we are seeing now in 
Seattle. It was in the Seattle Times yesterday, I mean, a list 
of restaurants that have now closed. And one of the business 
owners said, you know, it was already a difficult climate in 
Seattle to operate a small business, and that is what I fear 
will happen, especially in some of the municipalities that have 
already mandated leave benefits.
    Mr. Cline. Paid sick leave is obviously not a free benefit 
for employees. Can you discuss how paid leave benefits in 
general figure into the cost of an employee's compensation?
    Ms. Milito. In talking with members, you know, when they 
get hit with a mandate, decisions are made. You know, are we 
going to continue to offer, you know, our bucket of PTO? Does 
that comply? No, maybe not.
    If they are--you know, if they hit the threshold and they 
are offering paid leave, then, you know, things--real decisions 
are made. Are we going to cut bonuses? Are we going to hire 
fewer employees so we don't meet the threshold if there is a 
threshold? Are we going to stop sponsoring the Little League? 
This is coming from a real business owner. If we are a 
restaurant, are we no longer going to offer staff meals? Things 
like that. Some of them are perks, but some of them are very 
real. The Christmas bonuses, cutting out overtime, hard 
decisions that a business is going to have to make in order to 
determine, you know, how can we comply and pay for this 
mandate?
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I recognize the 
gentleman from Virginia, chair of the Education and Labor 
Committee. Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Ms. Glynn, what would happen if we 
don't consider this as an emergency and figure out how to get 
everybody access to paid sick leave?
    Dr. Glynn. Well, I think there are a couple of things that 
will happen if we continue to see high levels of workers 
without access to paid sick days. One is that we should 
anticipate seeing higher levels of contagion because people 
will, out of economic necessity, continue to go to work when 
they are sick. That is likely to be especially true among the 
low-wage workforce and the service sector. And those are folks 
who are likely to be in direct contact with the public as part 
of their work. So we should absolutely anticipate more people 
will get sick as a result of a lack of paid sick days.
    The other thing that we should be thinking about in the 
context of a public health emergency are the macroeconomic 
effects. So right now we are seeing already a combination of 
reduced labor supply because people are out sick. Even if they 
don't have sick time, they may just have to stay home because 
they are simply too ill to leave or because they are 
quarantining themselves in concurrence with the CDC 
recommendations. We are also seeing reduced demand for goods 
and services, particularly as people are practicing social 
distancing.
    So we are starting to see macroeconomic effects as a result 
of this. Having people forced to take unpaid sick time and 
seeing a dramatic drop in their income is only going to 
exacerbate those effects.
    So there are sort of two pieces that we should be thinking 
about here and both are equally important. One is about the 
physical health of our communities and making sure that we are 
addressing the pandemic and addressing people's public health. 
But the other is thinking about the health of our local 
economies and making sure that folks have money to put in their 
pockets. Because the fact that you have gotten COVID-19 does 
not mean that your bills stop needing to be paid, so we should 
be thinking about these two pieces in tandem as we address this 
current pandemic.
    Mr. Scott. If we provide legislation for coronavirus-
specific problems, what elements should be in that kind of 
bill?
    Dr. Glynn. So I think it is incredibly important when we 
are thinking about public health in the context of a global 
pandemic to make sure you are covering all workers. Any type of 
carve-out from a public health perspective simply does not make 
sense.
    You are also going to want to be thinking about the level 
of wage replacement. So paid sick days traditionally pay the 
same amount that you would earn if you were working. And I 
think that, in contrast, is something like unemployment 
insurance, which has a much lower level of wage replacement 
because they are incentivizing people to return to work as 
quickly as possible. You don't want to incentivize people to 
return to work too soon under these circumstances.
    So universal coverage is very important. A high level of 
wage replacement is incredibly important and making sure the 
benefit is easy to access for folks. You don't want it to be 
overly administratively burdensome either for leave-takers or 
for their employers. So trying to figure out the most 
efficient, cost-effective, and timely way to get these benefits 
out I think is going to some of the most important thins to 
keep in mind.
    Mr. Scott. What are some of the ways that the benefits can 
be done with less logistical problems?
    Dr. Glynn. You know, I would need to spend a little bit 
more time thinking about that before I gave an on-the-record 
recommendation. I know things are moving very quickly and I 
know there are a lot of people who are thinking about this, but 
we should be trying to figure out--
    Mr. Scott. Well, one of the things we are talking about are 
tax credits to businesses that are for which we impose the 
mandate. Would that be something that could be quickly 
accessed?
    Dr. Glynn. I think it would just depend exactly on how that 
was structured. Certainly, there do need to be supports, 
particularly for small businesses. This is--it is right to note 
that this is different than traditional paid sick days where 
you are talking about an extended length of leave and 
potentially your entire workforce being out at the same time. 
So having that economic support for businesses is going to be 
very important.
    You know, my concern would be, with a tax credit, when is 
that money actually going to hit your account? When are you 
going to see that? To what extent would that be refundable? I 
think there is a lot of detailed questions that would need to 
be answered to figure out if a tax credit for employers as 
reimbursement is the most efficient way to get that money back 
to them.
    Mr. Scott. Can you think of any more efficient way?
    Dr. Glynn. I mean, I think direct transfers to the extent 
that is possible. But, again, I feel uncomfortable talking off 
the cuff right now. I would need to spend a little bit more 
time. But I am happy to follow up with you or anyone else from 
the committee to think through some of those details.
    Mr. Scott. As quick as you can. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. The gentlelady from North 
Carolina--
    Mr. Scott. Madam Chair, can I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record a letter from Moms Rising dated today in 
support of family medical leave?
    Chairwoman Adams. Without objection.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Adams. The gentlelady from North Carolina, 
Ranking Member of Education and Labor Dr. Foxx, you are 
recognized.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here today.
    Ms. Milito, H.R. 1784 allows employers with fewer than 15 
employees to opt out of the paid sick leave mandate, but still 
requires them to provide an equal amount of unpaid leave. Why 
is H.R. 1784's opt-out provision misleading and how would it 
impact small employers? Would these employers also be subject 
to onerous compliance requirements?
    Ms. Milito. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. So while the bill does 
exempt businesses with fewer than 15 employees from offering 
paid leave, it would require all employers to offer unpaid 
leave and it would require all businesses to make, keep, and 
preserve records pertaining to compliance with the act and to 
potentially make submissions on an annual basis.
    Moreover, employers of all sizes would be subject to the 
same enforcement penalty and liability provisions, which are 
pretty significant.
    And no Main Street enterprise alone or collectively can 
match the resources, I would argue, of the U.S. Department of 
Labor, whose charge is to conduct audits and ensure compliance. 
So that is a real concern for small businesses is, you know, 
DOL knocking at their door and asking for records related to 
this act when they don't have an H.R. person.
    Ms. Foxx. Well, you mentioned that earlier in your 
testimony what--and as a former small business owner, I am very 
well aware, and my daughter runs our business now, she does 
H.R., she does everything because it is such a small business. 
And I am certainly well aware of what these kinds of things 
would do to her, especially a business that is seasonal. When 
you are in the nursery and landscaping business, it is 
seasonal. And you have to do everything you can to try to get 
the work in when the weather is good. It is a major challenge 
to be able to work only when the weather will allow you to do 
that. And you mentioned farmers earlier, and I can see that 
happening.
    Ms. Milito, as Congress considers additional steps to 
address COVID-19 in the workplace, supporters of H.R. 1784 and 
similar proscriptive employer mandates argue the Federal 
Government should force all employers to provide dictated 
benefits. Why should Congress think twice about imposing a one-
size-fits-all mandate on small businesses, especially under 
current circumstances?
    And I even wonder why in the world we need to ask that 
question because anybody with any common sense would know we 
shouldn't be doing that. But, please, give us your response.
    Ms. Milito. Right. So February was another historically 
strong month for the small business economy. This was under our 
Small Business Economic Trends Survey, so we don't have any 
data from the current, you know, the current period right now.
    So it is worth noting, again, that the responses were 
collected prior to the escalation of the coronavirus outbreak. 
So business, you know, was good, but the outbreak remains a big 
unknown and we are collecting data. And until we know, we are 
actually going to be releasing a survey, that we took over the 
last couple of days, tomorrow. And until we know how this is 
impacting our membership, we aren't in a position to talk about 
remedies or what will work or what our members need right now 
because we just don't know. And it is so dependent on where 
they are, what industry they are in. Are they in travel? Are 
they in restaurants? Boy, we are hearing from those members. 
But in other industries, you know, we just haven't heard from 
them yet.
    So, again, it is not the time to make a rash decision. I 
think we all need to come together. This is kind of an all 
hands on deck, come together. And we are eager to see any 
bipartisan proposals that might be introduced to support small 
business and employees.
    Ms. Foxx. Well, you have spoken to the issue of fines, 
penalties, potential litigation, the many hats that a small 
business owner has to wear. Is there anything we haven't asked 
you related to penalties, fines, recordkeeping that should be 
additionally highlighted as it comes not just to small 
businesses, but particularly to small businesses since you are 
from NFIB, but for other businesses, too?
    Ms. Milito. Yeah. I mean, the list of the legal and 
enforcement provisions contained in the Healthy Families Act is 
daunting, particularly if you are a small business owner. So 
for your daughter it would be very daunting, who doesn't have 
the time or expertise to make heads or tails of a statute and 
presumably the regulation that would be forthcoming from DOL, 
which is going to be, you know, long, you know.
    You know, small business owners don't have time to read 
regulations, 50, 100-page, 200-page FMLA regulations. And it 
gives the Department of Labor, the Secretary, a tremendous 
amount of enforcement authority there. So it is concerning from 
the perspective of a representative of the small business 
community. They need to be concerned.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. I will recognize now the 
gentlelady from Georgia. Ms. McBath, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I seek 
unanimous consent to submit two letters into the record: one 
from UnidosUS and the other from the YWCA, which outline why 
paid sick leave is necessary for our country.
    Chairwoman Adams. Without objection.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank 
you to all the witnesses that are here today. This is really a 
very, very timely hearing today.
    And I just want to say that, you know, we understand that 
paid sick leave is just absolutely necessary for a thriving and 
modern economy. Creating a framework for paid sick leave is 
essential for building a fair and equitable society. It is 
important that we are gathered here today to find some 
effective solutions and a pathway forward.
    I just spent a few moments today earlier talking with the 
members of the airline community, which I worked for 30 years, 
and then also small businesses. And I can assure you they are 
very, very concerned about making sure that people have access 
to paid sick leave.
    And we are seeing that the spread of COVID-19, the virus no 
one is immune to, caring for themselves or a loved one during 
this medical crisis, when unprotected workers come down with an 
illness it is vital that all of us are able to be able to take 
the time that we need should we succumb to this virus. Under 
current law over 30 million workers are not eligible for paid 
sick leave, forcing many of these individuals to choose between 
their health or their economic security. And no one should ever 
have to lose their job, forced to lose their job, or sacrifice 
their health simply because they or a loved one are sick. And 
this is a protection that we would all want if we were faced 
with being in this similar situation.
    We should all have a vested support--vested interest in 
supporting our workers and allowing them to take the time they 
need to care for themselves or for one another. We know that 
paid sick leave can have a cascade of positive effects on our 
health and economic wellbeing for the Nation.
    Dr. Glynn and Ms. Goldman, I would like to ask you how does 
the lack of paid sick days impact children's health? I want to 
talk about specifically how there is an impact on our 
children's health.
    Ms. Goldman. So we know that almost a third of parents lack 
access to paid sick days, which clearly has implications for 
the children's health. In focus groups parents will actually 
report making the difficult decision to send children to child 
care or school sick and give them Motrin and hope they make it 
through the day. But we know that with paid sick days parents 
are much more likely, understandably, to stay home when their 
child is sick.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you.
    Dr. Glynn. And I would also note on top of that, that we 
know that when people lack access to paid sick days they are 
both more likely to forego medical care for themselves, but 
also for their family members. So children whose parents don't 
have access to paid sick days are less likely to receive 
routine medical appointments, like they are supposed to. And we 
also know they are less likely to receive vaccinations, 
including flu vaccinations, when their parents can't take that 
paid time off to take them to the doctor.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you for your answers. And protecting the 
health of our children should always be our top priority.
    When I came to Washington, I knew that I wanted to pursue 
policies that actually have positive effects for all of my 
constituents and for Americans at large. And I believe that 
paid sick leave is one of those policies that helps both 
employees and our employers.
    And we also know that there is a significant cost 
associated with employees when they are working while sick. 
Some estimates show that a national economy spends over $200 
billion annually in lost productivity and has an outsized 
impact on our small businesses.
    Ms. Johnson, how would the Healthy Families Act support our 
small businesses?
    Ms. Johnson. The Healthy Families Act will support our 
small businesses in numerous ways. One, we would help our lower 
wage workers have some sort of floor or safe net. Right? They 
will be able to then take their children to the doctor when 
they need to. They will be able to go to the doctor themselves 
when they need to. It would be able to help the small business 
be more productive because when they are going to work and they 
are not feeling well, they are not going to be able to produce. 
So the productivity of the organization is going to fail be 
they are going to be more engaged in I am not feeling well. I 
am not feeling well, and telling their coworkers and 
potentially passing on their illness to other coworkers.
    So ensuring that we have some sort of safety net where 
people are able to take care of themselves means that we will 
have happier employees and happier employees, you are able to 
have happier employment situations.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much. And I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. We will yield to Ms. Stevens, 
the gentlelady from Michigan. You have 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to our 
witnesses.
    We are having this hearing on paid family sick leave under 
the pretense of a pandemic. And it was just reported that in 
Italy they have seen a 30 percent increase since yesterday in 
fatalities. And this is most certainly a somber time and a time 
that begets the conversation that we are having and that each 
of your bring forward with your testimonies as we seek the best 
set of economic solutions not only for the health of our own 
country, but for the future health of our country.
    And, Ms. Johnson, I am incredibly struck by your 
organization and your work in particular, representing the 
businesses that you represent and the work that Main Street 
Alliance has done. I am deeply appreciative of the work of the 
National Partnership for Women and Families, as well, that has 
always helped us here in Congress with these topics and 
particularly with paid family leave.
    And I was wondering, given that I helped launch the Women 
in STEM Caucus and there has been such a big conversation 
around diversity inclusion and minority ownership of 
businesses. If you wouldn't mind speaking about those 
perspectives, as well, and how paid family leave help women of 
color. I have spent a lot of time in Michigan, partnering with 
a group called Mothering Justice. They are another one of our 
advocates for this topic. And it is certainly so important to 
talk about women of color and how they are affected by lack of 
paid sick leave.
    Ms. Johnson. Yeah, definitely. And I will definitely open 
this up to my national partnership organizations that we work 
with.
    Ms. Stevens. Everyone is welcome to try, ma'am.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, yes, yes. Because it is not just one 
organization, it is all of us. And diversity and inclusion 
means that we are all included in it.
    And our small business owners, we see that they definitely 
know that it is a burden sometimes for those who are low-
income, low-wage workers to not have these benefits. Right? 
Because they are not able to just take off when they need to 
and take care of themselves. Because, again, like I mentioned 
earlier healthier families, you know, means healthier work 
environments, as well. Especially with those communities of 
color, we see that there is a larger amount of those that have 
not received those benefits.
    And so it stays in a system, in a cycle where if you're low 
wage and you aren't able to take off, you are more likely to 
quite your job. Right? Then that employer has to find a new 
employee, retention, training, and hiring that new employee 
then, it costs more money. So on both sides of the coin having 
the support of legislation would be great because it would help 
those low-wage, low-income communities of color more 
efficiently.
    Ms. Stevens. Dr. Glynn, I know CAP has done a lot of great 
work on this, as well.
    Dr. Glynn. Yeah. So I did a research project a few years 
back using a nationally representative dataset and one of the 
most striking findings that came out of that was that even when 
you controlled for a whole host of factors--age, gender, 
marital status, presence of children, health, the types of job 
that one had, their income--Latinx workers were statistically 
significantly less likely to have access to paid sick days. So 
compared to their colleagues that they were identical in all 
other factors with, the fact of being Latinx made you less 
likely to having access to paid sick leave.
    And so I think that points to why we do need to have 
interventions to help level the playing field because clearly 
the market is not taking care of this issue on its own when you 
can see those kinds of disparities.
    Ms. Stevens. And also very similar to raising the minimum 
wage, which is a conversation that we are having at all times 
here in this Congress and certainly legislation that we have 
passed. But you see a lot of those similarities, as well.
    With the remaining, Ms. Goldman, you want to chime in?
    Ms. Goldman. Yeah. I just wanted to add, also, that I know 
right now we are talking about passing the law, but the 
implementation and enforcement is critical, also. What they 
found in San Francisco after they passed their paid sick leave 
ordinance is that most employers were in compliance. But for 
those that were not, it was most affecting Black workers, low-
wage workers, and Latinx workers. So part of it is the 
implementation and enforcement and ensuring the technical 
assistance so all businesses can comply with the law.
    Ms. Stevens. For equality. Well, thank you so much. And 
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I will now recognize 
the gentlelady from Oregon. Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes, ma'am.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chair Adams and Ranking 
Member Byrne. And thank you to all of our witnesses today.
    I represent Northwest Oregon, and I hear from restaurant 
workers and retail clerks, social service providers, child care 
workers, they struggle. They struggle to address their own 
medical needs or the medical needs of their family members, 
their children, without fear of losing their jobs and wages. 
And it is, of course, only exacerbated by the coronavirus 
epidemic which we are facing. And very timely to have this 
hearing now.
    Healthcare workers like Destiny in Oregon, she works in a 
long-term care facility. She said, ``I would be hesitant to 
tell anyone I was feeling sick. I can't afford to miss paying 
my bills.'' And she added, ``People will continue to work while 
sick and risk exposing residents, as well as other healthcare 
workers, to the coronavirus.''
    Fortunately, in Oregon, most workers have access to 
protected sick leave. And for the majority of workers that sick 
time is paid. I want to note that I have heard from small 
businesses, businesses, but also small businesses, in Oregon 
that the sick leave law is good for their business and it is 
good for the economy. And, Ms. Johnson, I know you mentioned 
Jim Houser in your testimony.
    And my mother was a small business owner. My first job was 
in a small business. I understand the importance of small 
businesses, but truly, across the country far too many workers 
do not have access to paid sick days. So as we continue here in 
Congress to coordinate our response to the coronavirus and as 
communities continue to face more common short-term illnesses, 
like the cold or the flu, we absolutely need to do all we can 
to make access to paid sick and safe days a priority.
    So I am pleased to support the Healthy Families Act and the 
Paid Sick Days for Public Health Emergencies and Personal 
Family Care Act to help make sure that all workers have access 
to protected sick leave without losing wages or their job.
    And I have to say, as a mother and a policymaker I know no 
parent should have to make that decision between losing their 
job and taking care of a child.
    Dr. Glynn and Ms. Goldman, what are the individual and 
public health consequences when workers do not have paid sick 
leave and they go to work when they or their family member is 
sick? What are the public health consequences, Dr. Glynn?
    Dr. Glynn. Yeah. I mean, I think the example you just gave 
about someone who is working in a long-term care facility 
really highlights how important these policies are because that 
is someone who is directly interacting with the most medically 
vulnerable folks, particularly given the context we are in 
right now, but always. Right.
    Ms. Bonamici. Right, always.
    Dr. Glynn. And I am not being hyperbolic when I say people 
have died because of the lack of paid sick days. Right? I mean, 
some of this we can document. So like I mentioned before, the 
American Public Health Association has said that 1,500 deaths 
during the H1N1 epidemic can be traced back to people going to 
work when they were sick and contagious.
    But it goes beyond that, as well, because we also know that 
people who lack access to paid sick days are much less likely 
to go to the doctor and they are much less likely to access 
preventative care, so things like colonoscopies and mammograms. 
Right?
    Ms. Bonamici. Right.
    Dr. Glynn. And so what we often see if this uptick in 
emergency room usage among people who lack access to paid sick 
days. Some of that is a scheduling conflict--
    Ms. Bonamici. Right, right.
    Dr. Glynn.--because the emergency room's open, but some of 
that is also because, and we have documentation of this, 
although it is hard to study at a large scale, that folks will 
let their medical condition go until it is too late or until it 
is much more serious than it might have been otherwise. So that 
has negative impacts on the individual's health and their 
family's health.
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. I want to hear real quickly from 
Ms. Goldman, too.
    Ms. Goldman. I agree with everything Dr. Glynn said.
    Ms. Bonamici. Perfect.
    Ms. Goldman. But I would just note, I mean, it starts very 
early in life. So women are less likely to--to delay the 
prenatal care they need if they don't have access to paid sick 
days. They are less likely to be able to take their new babies 
to the eight recommended well baby visits, not to mention 
babies and toddlers get sick until their appointments after 
that. So very early in life we are seeing these multiplier 
effects of not having a paid sick days policy.
    Ms. Bonamici. And in my remaining time, Ms. Johnson, we 
know that workers without access to paid sick leave are 
disproportionately low-wage workers and workers of color. Why 
should there be a Federal standard for paid sick days separate 
from like vacation time or flex time? Why should that Federal 
standard be a floor rather than preempt stronger state laws?
    Ms. Johnson. Yeah. We believe that there should be a floor 
because if a state is already doing it and implementing it, 
great, but just make sure it is the floor. It will be the 
standard so that there is a baseline that people can then look 
up to and say, all right, this state is doing this, and maybe 
that will be competition for the small businesses to have more 
people coming to work for them.
    There are other opportunities for us to see growth here, 
right, when we have this baseline. And we want to make sure 
that our small business owners are able to be successful. And 
having this benefit makes them more competitive with larger 
businesses in their community, as well.
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. Thank you so much. And my time is 
about to expire. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. We will yield 5 
minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairwoman. I am so glad we are here 
discussing this topic today. And I very much appreciate the 
testimony of our witnesses and all that you have all shared, 
though I have to admit I have long been convinced by the case 
for universal access to paid sick leave and feel like it is 
finally time to stop debating the policy and just pass this 
life-changing law already.
    So instead of asking questions to our witnesses to 
elaborate on their testimony, instead I would like to use this 
time to share some of the stories that have me so convinced 
that we need to implement a national sick leave program. 
Stories from Minnesotans like Donna. Donna works two part-time 
jobs, neither of which offer her paid sick days. Like many 
Americans, Donna has ongoing healthcare struggles. Over the 
last 2 years alone, she has had to leave three--she had to have 
three different surgeries. And without access to sick days 
Donna has had no choice but to miss work while she was in the 
hospital and in recovery. That means that she has lost out on 
over 3 months of pay. Meanwhile, her medical bills are piling 
up.
    I would also like to tell the story of another constituent 
of mine, Katherine. As a working mother, Katherine finds 
herself choosing between the only three options she has when 
her kids get sick: lose a day's pay to stay home, send her 
children to school no matter how sick they might be, or forcing 
one of her older children to stay at home from school to look 
after their siblings. If Katherine had paid sick days, she 
wouldn't have to choose between those three absurd options next 
time one of her kids is under the weather. No mother should be 
able--no mother should be forced to sacrifice a paycheck to 
care for an ill child.
    I would also like to share one last story from Marion. 
Marion works full time as a registered nurse in a Minnesota 
hospital while raising a young family of four. Marion is only 
allowed 3 paid sick days per year. Working in an emergency room 
she has had high exposure to illnesses and, given her role as a 
caretaker, it is critical that she is not only ill while 
looking after already vulnerable patients. But how can she 
afford to do that with only 3 paid sick days? Any parent in 
this room could attest to the fact that when you are raising a 
family of four, 3 days is not going to cut it.
    So, yes, although I am glad we have had this hearing today, 
I hope we can make this the last conversation we have about 
this. We need to get this done for Donna, for Katherine, for 
Marian, and for countless others.
    I would also like to mention a topic many of my colleagues 
have brought up today: the response to the coronavirus 
concerns. Although I am pleased that the House has swiftly 
passed emergency appropriation last week to help fight the 
epidemic, I am disappointed that Congress has not done more as 
a governing body for workers.
    If you walk up and down the halls of this building you will 
see numerous signs on office doors indicating that some 
congressional offices have decided to close, are allowing their 
employees to telework, or have decided to not stop--have 
decided to not take meetings in the public. Although I respect 
the instinct to protect one's staff, we have to stop and ask 
ourselves does the average American have this option or is this 
a privilege that only some, including the members of Congress 
and employees of this body, are lucky to have?
    We can't sequester ourselves while ignoring the countless 
Americans who work in consumer or food service or those in 
healthcare fields actually fighting this epidemic. Those 
workers don't have the option to telework nor can they afford 
to go without pay.
    More than 30 percent of workers in Minnesota are employed 
by the healthcare, retail, or hospitality industry. That is 
nearly 1 million workers just in my state and many of whom have 
no choice but to go to work regardless of the risk.
    We need to fix this problem long term and make sure that 
everyone has access to leave. I can't understand how anyone 
could continue to argue that paid sick is unnecessary or a 
luxury that this country can't afford. Frankly, we cannot 
afford not to act. I think it is time to consider this case 
closed.
    Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I would now yield to 
the gentlelady from Washington. Dr. Schrier, you have 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, thank 
you for all coming here to talk about this important issue. I 
think it is--and in particular it is important for women, and I 
will get to that in a moment.
    But I have to first just touch on the issue of the 
coronavirus pandemic that we are facing right now because this 
is so big it almost doesn't even belong in this particular 
discussion where we are talking about 7 days of sick leave; 
that this poses tremendous threats to workers, to sick people, 
and also, Ms. Milito, to small businesses.
    And, in fact, I looked up the article from the Seattle 
Times and, in fact, the business that you referred to that was 
talking about closing, it was because of slowing business from 
the coronavirus epidemic, not from paid sick leave. I just want 
to be very clear that this was related to what is going on 
right now and I think we can expect to see that ripple effect 
across. It is not related to paid sick leave. It is related to 
people not going to businesses and people holding onto money 
because there isn't enough money because they are working or 
they can't work.
    I think that is our job in Congress and would agree with my 
colleague, Ms. Omar, who just talked about our responsibility 
to workers. And I am happy that this week we will be passing 
something to do just that, to make it so people can take off a 
month, if needed, to quarantine and to take care of family 
members if affected, and that we will help with unemployment, 
as well.
    There has been a lot of talk about small businesses and a 
particular toll on small businesses with this. And so the first 
thing I just want to say is that I don't think that 7 days of 
paid sick leave is at all generous. I think that is a bare 
minimum. And, frankly, I think that is the least we can do for 
our workers, whether we are a large corporation or a small 
business, that this really should be the floor.
    And before we get too wrapped up into talking about how 
this is hard for small businesses, I wanted to maybe highlight 
some of the ways this is really good for small businesses who 
only have a few employees. And if one comes to work sick and 
gets two others sick, what that would mean.
    So I wonder, Ms. Goldman, could you talk first about some 
of the benefits to a small business?
    Ms. Goldman. Sure. I mean, the lack of paid sick days laws 
encourages presenteeism, or going to work sick. If workers 
can't afford to stay home because then they don't have 
groceries and rent payment, they are going to come to work sick 
and, as you know, could potentially make their colleagues sick 
or make the public sick and spread it, which is going to, as I 
believe Ms. Johnson noted, have economic impacts on the 
business, as well.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you. And we have seen some of that in 
Washington State, in King County. This is sort of the epicenter 
of the coronavirus epidemic right now that workers in a nursing 
home came to work probably because they did not--I don't know 
about their situations, but feeling pressure to work because 
without work they don't get paid. And one of those workers also 
moonlights at another nursing care facility, and so we are now 
seeing it pop up in that one, which I think highlights the 
public health interest and also the personal interest in having 
those paid sick days.
    I also wanted to just answer our ranking member talked 
about why in the world would there be a requirement for small 
businesses with fewer than 15 people to have mandatory unpaid 
sick days off? And I just wanted to clarify that the reason it 
is there is that people otherwise would get fired if they took 
sick days. And so I just want to be clear that there is a very 
good reason even if they are not paid.
    Next, I wanted to talk a little bit about kind of the 
social implications. Who is most affected in a population by 
not having paid sick leave? Is it women? Is it low-income 
people, minorities? Highlight who that would be and whether 
they have children for me, please.
    Dr. Glynn. Sure. So we know it is the most vulnerable 
workers are the ones who are the least likely to have access to 
paid sick days, so that is folks who are learning--earning low 
wages. That overlaps a lot with people who are working in the 
service sector. And we know, if you look at who those workers 
are, they are disproportionately likely to be women and women 
of color, many of whom are raising families.
    I think it is also important to note that people without 
access to paid sick days are more likely to fall into poverty. 
They are more likely to experience food insecurity. And they 
are more likely to need to apply for and receive public 
benefits as a result of their economic instability and 
insecurity in their lives.
    So having paid sick days, I think we often talk about the 
cost of these policies, but there is also a cost to not having 
these policies. And I think we are seeing that very much in the 
public health sphere right now, but there are economic and 
interpersonal certainly, as well, and costs that are being paid 
right now. But it is usually the workers who are paying those 
costs of not having a benefit like paid sick days.
    Dr. Schrier. And I am out of time, but it is also society 
because when you can't go to the doctor during the workday and 
you go to the emergency room at night, and it is charity care 
we all pay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Thank you all very much. I 
remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice, 
materials for submission for the hearing record must be 
submitted to the Committee Clerk within 14 days following the 
last day of the hearing, preferably in Microsoft Word format. 
The materials submitted must address the subject matter of the 
hearing. Only a member of the subcommittee or an invited 
witness may submit materials for inclusion in the record.
    Documents are limited to 50 pages each, no longer. A longer 
than 50-page documents will be incorporated into the record via 
internet link that you must provide to the committee clerk 
within the required timeframe, but please recognize that years 
from now that link may no longer work.
    Again, I want to thank the witnesses for their 
participation today. What we have heard is valuable. Members of 
the subcommittee may have additional questions for you and we 
ask that the witnesses to respond to those questions in 
writing. The hearing record will be held open for 14 days in 
order to receive those responses.
    I remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice 
witness questions for the hearing record must be submitted to 
the Majority Committee Staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days. 
The questions submitted must address the subject matter of the 
hearing.
    I now recognize our distinguished ranking member for his 
closing statement.
    Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have just read a 
political article that has come out in the last few hours that 
says that Speaker Pelosi and Secretary of Treasury Mnuchin are 
working together on an expanded response to the COVID-19 crisis 
and it would include this topic. That is the way you do this, 
in a bipartisan fashion. That is how we passed an $8 billion 
appropriations bill last week to address this. You do it by 
working together. You don't do it by having a completely 
partisan bill. So I am hopeful that conversation between the 
two of them will yield something that we can all get behind 
because that is the way we solve this.
    But I am mindful of something Rahm Emanuel said when he was 
chief of staff to President Obama in 2009. He said you never 
let a serious crisis go to waste. I am afraid some of us are 
doing that here. We are trying to use this crisis to get 
something that is really not directly related to it.
    Look, paid leave is a good thing. It is a good thing. That 
is why 75 percent of small businesses offer and 80 percent of 
all businesses offer it, because it is a good thing for their 
employees, it is a good thing for the business. But it is not 
possible for every business. And maybe there are ways we can 
help them get there, which we thought we were doing and I think 
we did achieve to some extent with the tax reform bill. And I 
want to do that, I want to help businesses get to the point 
where it is a good thing for all of them in all circumstances.
    Unfortunately, some of our small businesses, when they have 
to make decisions, their margins are razor thin. And they make 
a bad decision and it means they shut down their business and 
everybody in that business loses their job. So we are highly 
dependent in this country on literally hundreds of thousands of 
small businesses to make the right decision so that they don't 
close down and we don't lose the jobs that they have got.
    I was there advising small businesses during the passage of 
the Americans With Disabilities Act and the passage of the 
Family Medical Leave Act. The enormous burdens that we put on a 
lot of those businesses, I don't think any of us in Congress or 
people in Congress at that time had a clue what it was doing to 
those small businesses. We have to keep them in mind in what we 
are doing here and one size does not fit all.
    Now, don't just ask me that. Go back and read the words of 
the people that founded this country and put together our 
Constitution. They understood that this was going to be a very 
diverse continental nation and they set a government in place 
to allow for that diversity, to allow for that flexibility. It 
has worked pretty well for almost 250 years. I think we can 
continue to let it go.
    And so let me just say this about implementation and 
enforcement. I have been there for implementation and 
enforcement. That is where you run people out of business. I 
have seen it happen over and over and over again. 
Implementation and enforcement can be a good thing where 
government is working with businesses to help them get to a 
desired result or it can be a dagger in the heart. And too 
often, we are the dagger in the heart.
    And I tell people all the time if you are a hammer, 
everything looks like a nail. If you are a regulator, 
everything looks like it needs to be regulated to death. We 
have got to find a happy medium here and we are not doing a 
very good job of it.
    So I am looking forward to seeing, Madam Chairman, whatever 
comes out of the work between Speaker Pelosi and Secretary 
Mnuchin.
    And while I am on that topic I totally agree with the 
speaker saying we should be here doing our work. I am glad we 
are here doing our work. We should be modeling for the rest of 
the country what we should be doing in a cautious, but totally 
realistic fashion. And I hope that her work with Secretary 
Mnuchin can produce a piece of legislation that you and I and 
everybody in Congress can get behind.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. I certainly agree with 
you. And if we weren't here doing our work, we would probably 
still be getting paid, but, you know, we have got to think 
about everybody else, as well. So I am glad that discussion is 
going on.
    I recognize myself now for the purpose of my closing 
statement. Today's hearing confirmed that we have long known 
the lack of access to paid sick leave in this country poses a 
significant threat to our economy, our businesses, our workers, 
and our public health. To tackle the paid--the rapid spread of 
infectious diseases, such as the coronavirus, we must learn 
from the lessons of past health crises and ensure that workers 
have access to paid sick days now to protect themselves, their 
families, and our Nation. The committee will pursue legislation 
to immediately protect workers' health and economic security.
    But as our witnesses reminded us today, this issue is not 
just about combatting global health crises when they arise. 
Allowing more workers to earn and take paid sick days means 
that workers will not have to decide between their paychecks 
and their family's health. And that is life-changing for so 
many of our constituents, including the people of my district.
    Katherine Austin, a working mom in my district, said this, 
and I quote, ``I have never once had a job that offered even 
unpaid sick days. It is rough knowing that if I call out of 
work for being sick or for needing to take care of my sick 
child, I can lose my job. I've had to wait tables while 
vomiting and running a fever because my employer told me I had 
to come in or I would be fired. I've passed out while working 
because of dehydration from vomiting. I've had to keep my sick 
child at home with me because his daycare sent him home with a 
fever, but my boss said they would fire me if I stayed home 
with him. Why should we have to choose between our health and 
keeping our jobs.''
    Katherine Austin represents millions of workers across the 
country who need Congress to act. We must pass the Healthy 
Families Act and finally establish workers' rights to earn the 
paid sick days they need to care for themselves, their 
families, and their communities.
    And before we adjourn, I ask unanimous consent to submit 
into the record a letter led by the National Partnership for 
Women and Families and signed by over 130 organizations urging 
Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act. I would also like to 
submit the story of Lauren Melton, who needed time off to care 
for her sick mother and lost her job as a result. Without 
objection.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Additional submissions by Chairwoman Adams follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]